Hey Eugene, Fuck You!
It must be nice to be an ignorant puss-head like Eugene Kane, living in a fantasy world where you carefully avoid facts and contrary data when smugly dishing your opinion (and disguising it as self-evident reality).He takes a few (highly unoriginal) shots at supporters of the war and Bush. See, to prejudiced knee-jerk lefties, ...it's all about Bush.
Kane states flatly that : I always insist it wasn't a just war, at least not for the reasons given by President Bush.
Meaning, the threat of weapons of mass destruction Iraq allegedly possessed at the time of our invasion.
Didn't Bill Clinton blomb Iraq a number of times? What was the justification used for those attacks, ....anyone? They would be the SAME reasons used for the war the Bush administration prosecuted. I don't remember hearing "Clinton lied! Clinton lied! Clinton lied!" from the left during his 8 year term. For one thing, they would have had to have been more specific.
All Kane has to do is look up Bush's actual speaches from the time to see that the WMDs were merely ONE of the reasons we went to war. But the left always focused primarily on that because they just were not going to support a war prosecuted by a Republican. They couldn't be against the war for the other stated reasons, liberation, UN violations, common descency, genocide, ...so they needed something.
They kept saying, "Well, Iraq hasn't attacked us." Furthermore, they needed to show that Iraq was not going to be a threat to us in the near future, ...so they grabbed on to the WMDs.
Now, the WMDs were the reasons for the UN violations. Saddam was supposed to disarm and prove that he did so. He never proved it, never provided documentation of it, and acting like he was concealing these weapons all the time. Maybe it was a bluff, ...but we called his bluff and he lost. You can bet no one else will follow the same strategy (see Libya).
I see this as a GOOD THING. But for a partisan democrat who cares less about his country than he does his party, ...it's a BAD thing.
Then, while speaking of David Kay, Kane writes a carefully worded sentence meant to imply something different than what it says: In any case, no evidence of weapons or a comprehensive program to produce large amounts of weapons was found.
They DID find LOTS of evidence pointing directly to weapons programs. Why did Kane leave out other statements from David Kay?
I must say, I actually think what we learned during the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war.
Or this: Kay told the Telegraph that some materials ? not stockpiles, but perhaps substances and "some components of Saddam's WMD programme" ? likely made their way to Syria.
Finally, Kane suggests that the whole world will be shocked to learn that Bush was a Vietnam deserter. He then salivates over the fact that Kerry was active and wounded in action in Vietnam, which is weapon they will use to bash Bush.
First, this story came up in the last campaign and has largely been discredited. Records from the time were not kept well, but the base commander at the time gave Bush the "all clear" over the affiar.
Second, Bush already beat a Nam vet, ...Al Gore.
Third, how can a party (and for that matter a hack like Kane) bash Bush over his Vietnam service after having their tongues halfway up Clinton's ass for 8 years? He begged his way out of the draft (claiming in a letter that he "loathed" the military), letting other young men die so he could chase skirts and go to England. Furthermore, he participated in anti-American protests in the communist Soviet Union (yes, he did, in Moscow) during the war. The lefties supported Clinton all the way and now they are going make a big deal about Bush because he may not have filed out all his paperwork the correct way?
What else do you expect from them?
Finally, ...why can't Kane be happy for the liberation fo Iraq? The fact that a brutal dictator is removed, that his apparatus or terror is gone forever, that 29 million people have a reason to think positively about the future for the first time in decades?
It's all about Bush.
<< Home